‘A dispute resolution clause in an existing and enforceable contract which required the parties to seek to resolve a dispute by friendly discussions in good faith and within a limited period of time before the dispute could be referred to arbitration was enforceable.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Skraba v Regional Court in Nowy Sacz, Poland: [2014] EWHC 2193 (Admin); [2014] WLR (D) 292
‘Section 60(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 gave the High Court power, having dismissed an appeal against an extradition order, to review and, where considered appropriate, to vary any costs order made against the requested person by the first instance court under section 60(1)(a) of the Act.’
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A dispute resolution clause in an existing and enforceable contract which required the parties to seek to resolve a dispute by friendly discussions in good faith and within a limited period of time before the dispute could be referred to arbitration was enforceable.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Although there was no doubt that there were circumstances in which the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, could properly make an order requiring someone to lodge their passport with the court or with some suitable custodian it was not permissible to make such an order to compel a third party without parental responsibility, or any other form of power or control over the child, to take steps to secure the return of an abducted child. Furthermore, where the subject of the order was not yet 17 it was simply wrong as a matter of principle to attach a penal notice to the order since a child could not be imprisoned or detained for contempt.’
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A clause which said that parties to a contract would “endeavour” to resolve any dispute through Swiss arbitration, failing which the English courts would have non-exclusive jurisdiction, was not a valid arbitration agreement within the meaning of the Arbitration Act, the English High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Kruppa v Benedetti and another [2014] EWHC 1887 (Comm); [2014] WLR (D) 250
‘A governing law and jurisdiction clause in an agreement which provided that “the parties will endeavour to first resolve the matter through Swiss arbitration” but where no resolution was forthcoming that the “courts of England shall have non-exclusive jurisdiction” did not constitute an arbitration agreement within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996.’
WLR Daily, 11th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has just reversed a decision of the Court of Appeal (see my previous post here) that a dispute about the trust deeds of two Sikh religious charities was non-justiciable and so could not and should not be decided by the Courts. By contrast, the SC said that two initial issues concerning the meaning of trust deeds were justiciable, and, because of this, further issues which did raise religious issues had to be determined by the courts.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th June 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The concept of “the member state in which the act of infringement has been committed” in article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark meant that, in the event of a sale and delivery of a counterfeit product in one member state, followed by a resale by the purchaser in another member state, that provision did not allow jurisdiction to be established to hear an infringement action against the original seller who did not himself act in the member state where the court seised was situated.’
WLR Daily, 5th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Britain’s finest legal minds have been asked to make sense of some of life’s thorniest problems, but few compare to that posed by the followers of Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj – specifically whether he is a Sikh saint, the Third Holy Saint in fact.’
The Independent, 8th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Burrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 716; [2014] WLR (D) 241
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal could contain the application of the conventional approach to remittal in a number of ways, namely by (i) being robust when applying that approach, (ii) encouraging parties to consent to the Appeal Tribunal disposing of the case itself and (iii) limiting the scope of any remittal made.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The role of the UK’s Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is generally limited to ruling on the lawfulness of an employment tribunal’s decisions rather than making its own assessment of a case, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A British grandmother facing execution by firing squad in Indonesia for drug smuggling has no funds to mount a legal challenge against her sentence, the UK’s highest court has been told.’
The Guardian, 4th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘CPR r 81.4(3), which gave the court power to order that a company director or officer be imprisoned for a company’s contempt, applied to a director who was outside the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Windermere Marina Village v Wild [2014] UKUT 163 (LC) is an important decision about the vexed question of apportionment that arises in many residential service charge disputes.’
NearlyLegal, 2nd June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others (No 11) [2014] EWCA Civ 602; [2014] WLR (D) 221
‘Where non-parties resident outside the jurisdiction applied for removal of an asset from the scope of freezing and associated orders, the court had jurisdiction to order the trial of an issue as to whether they owned the asset as claimed, but not as to whether they had colluded in breach of the orders, without steps being taken to establish extra-territorial jurisdiction in reliance on paragraph 3.1 of CPR Practice Direction 6B.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bone v North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 652; [2014] WLR (D) 214
‘It was not necessary in a claim for detriment under section 146(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the independence of the relevant trade union to be established in order for an employment tribunal to have jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Although exceptional, the power existed to grant a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction as opposed to an anti-suit injunction.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Although exceptional, the power existed to grant a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction as opposed to an anti-suit injunction. The Court of Appeal so held when, inter alia, allowing the appeal of the defendants in the first case, Vitaly Arkhangelsky and Julia Arkhangelskaya, and the Part 20 claimant, Oslo Marine Group Ports LLC, against the refusal by Hildyard J, sitting in the Chancery Division on 14 November 2013 [2013] EWHC 3529 (Ch); [2013] CN 1773, to grant a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction, leaving the first claimant in the first case, Bank St Petersburg OJSC, free to execute on certain judgments it had obtained in Russia wherever assets could be found. The judge held, inter alia, that any such injunction would appear to be an infringement of the sovereignty of the states where enforcement was taking place.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Why were drug courts set up?
The introduction of drug courts in the UK has followed a slightly different trajectory to other jurisdictions, where drug courts filled an important gap in the range of community-based sanctions available to the courts to deal with drug-related crime.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 13th May 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024